ESSENDON players have been given extra time to respond to ASADA allegations they used banned peptide Thymosin Beta 4.

The allegations are made in show-cause notices issued last week by ASADA to 34 players on Essendon’s list in 2012.

Lawyers for the players requested an extension to the initial 10-day deadline, which expires on Monday, to argue why they should not be placed on the Register of Findings — the trigger for the AFL to begin the process of issuing infraction notices that could lead to two-year bans.

The date is after a Federal Court directions hearing on June 27 when the Bombers and James Hird will present their case that the joint AFL-ASADA investigation is unlawful. A final ruling is not expected for several months.

Essendon and the AFLPA called on ASADA to freeze the investigation until after the court case is resolved, but ASADA has not agreed to that request.

Yesterday, the AFL Players Association refused to rule out further legal action against ASADA, saying the drug body’s recent actions have been “extremely disappointing”.

It comes as an explosive email from the AFL to ASADA has been revealed as the reason why Essendon players believed they would escape doping bans.

“I would think in terms of ASADA’s duties ... that they provide that evidence so that we can give them advice based on what, if anything, has been gathered since the interim report.”

Prendergast also commented on the recent report suggesting nine other clubs were being investigated over health and safety matters.

“We were supportive of the AFL’s audit it undertook in relation to talking to all clubs in regards to the practices and procedures they have in place.”

“We are also comfortable with the subsequent steps the AFL have taken to deal with that matter and also the changes that we have worked through with the AFL to the anti-doping code.”

READ THE AFLPA’S FULL STATEMENT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE

Today’s developments come after the Herald Sun revealed an explosive email from the AFL to ASADA reveals why Essendon players believed they would escape doping bans.

The email, also sent to then prime minister Julia Gillard’s office, sheds light on a major split between the AFL and ASADA over a behind-the-scenes agreement struck in February last year.

The agreement stated that “to provide an immediate level of comfort ... it will be explained to players that under a no fault or negligence defence a player can receive a complete elimination of sanction”.

ASADA handed a copy of the agreement to players and talked them through the details on February 20 last year — 15 days after footy’s doping scandal erupted.

Sources say the players have since been of the strong belief they were not the focus of the investigation and would escape penalty over Essendon’s 2012 supplements program, owing to “exceptional circumstances” acknowledged in the agreement.

But in the email from a senior AFL figure, seen by the Herald Sun, it emerges ASADA attempted to alter the agreement two weeks later.

Revelations of the dispute, and the league’s strong backing of the players, comes as the anti-doping agency pushes to ban 34 former and current Bombers who were issued with “show cause” notices last week.

The email, which was sent on March 7 last year, says: “It is the AFL’s, Essendon Football Club’s (and its players and officials), and the AFL Players’ Association’s clear understanding that the Investigation and any subsequent actions will be conducted in accordance with your Original Statement.

“Further, the AFL, the Essendon Football Club (and its players and officials), and the AFL Players’ Association have all relied upon the Original Statement and the Investigation has commenced and is ongoing on the basis of this reliance.”

Part of the letter front he AFL to ASADA.Source:Supplied

The second half of the letter from AFL to ASADA.Source:Supplied

The email shows the extent of dealings between the AFL, ASADA and the Gillard government in the early days of the Essendon investigation.

“The wording released by ASADA on 20 February 2013 (Original Statement) (as detailed in Annexure A to this letter) was extensively negotiated between the AFL and ASADA, and, in our view, is clear on its face and unambiguous,” the email says.

Sources say the agreement will be a critical element of the players’ defence to ASADA’s show-cause notices.

Essendon stars and their lawyers are still of the belief that players have not been administered a banned substance, but also that they would escape any sanction if it was discovered they had been deceived, provided they co-operated under the terms of the February agreement.

Players were bemused when ASADA chief executive Ben McDevitt last week appeared to suggest six-month suspensions would be available if they came forward and cooperated, which sources said they had done.

The reliability of the original agreement is believed to have been a discussed at a meeting between players and their lawyers on Monday night.

— with Brendan Lucas

Acting AFLPA chief executive Ian Prendergast.Source:News Limited

STATEMENT FROM ACTING AFLPA BOSS IAN PRENDERGAST:

“Following the serious development of players being issued show cause notices by ASADA, and the subsequent media coverage, I’d like to provide clarity around the current situation and process from here.

The players met on Monday night and were briefed by their legal team, consisting of AFL Players’ Association lawyers Bernie Shinners and Brett Murphy, in addition to Tony Hargreaves; who are jointly instructing David Grace QC and Ben Ihle of Counsel.

The players’ legal team has now written to ASADA to request an extension to the 10 day period in which they were asked to respond, and to request a copy of all documents and other materials that ASADA proposes to put to the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel in respect of the players.

To date, the players’ lawyers have not been provided with the evidence which would enable players to respond to the show cause notices, and their requests to be provided with this material have been refused.

The CEO of ASADA, Ben McDevitt, has publicly urged players to come forward and co-operate with ASADA, and suggested that players may be able to utilise a plea of ‘no significant fault or negligence’, and have their penalties reduced on the basis of ‘substantial assistance’.

In saying this, Mr. McDevitt seems to be suggesting that players have not fully co-operated with ASADA, yet nothing could be further from the truth. The players have done nothing but cooperate with ASADA, as they were advised to do by their Association, their club, the AFL and by ASADA officials. ASADA’s investigators have praised the players, who they considered professional, co-operative and sincere in their efforts to assist the investigation.

In circumstances where not one player believes he has taken a prohibited substance, and where the players have not been provided the evidence on which ASADA relies to make this claim, why would any player consider the approach that Mr. McDevitt suggests.

ASADA, as a model litigant, has a duty to provide players with the evidence to enable them to respond to the show cause notices. If it refuses to provide this information voluntarily, then the players will be forced to take legal action to ensure that ASADA complies with its model litigant obligations and acts fairly with respect to the players.

The players’ legal team will also ask ASADA to stay the show cause process, including referral of these matters to the ADRVP, until after the club’s Federal Court action has been concluded.

It is important to note that this request is not a delaying tactic — the players are, in fact, keen for this matter to be resolved, given the length of time in which this has now dragged on.

However, it makes no sense to subject players to the next stage in this process, in circumstances where the club’s legal action may subsequently render the process invalid. We therefore urge ASADA and the Club to take steps to expedite this process in the Federal Court to finalise this matter at the earliest opportunity.

Again, the players’ lawyers are yet to be provided any evidence implicating players in a breach of the AFL Anti-Doping Code. In the absence of any such evidence, questions of ‘defences’ and ‘reduced sanctions’ are premature.

Nevertheless, if the evidence does establish a breach of the code, then the steps taken by players to assure themselves that substances administered were compliant with the WADA Code must be taken into account.

The players took all reasonable steps to ensure that the substances they were to be administered were compliant with the WADA Code, and were provided with written guarantees to this effect. If it turns out that those substances were not compliant, and the players were deceived by those who they were asked to trust, they should not be punished as a result.”